Hacker News Reader

Comment by FormerBandmate | Hacker News Reader

>It's simple, like all crypto newbies this prosecutor has just learned: Not your keys, not your coins.

The US government can throw your ass in prison for the rest of your life so yes, it is their coins. This is the basis of all government power and in a lot of cases, like this, it's good

View on HN

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument.

The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws.

Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral!

Innocent until proven guilty.

In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.

> governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly

This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.

There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic.

How exactly is that disingenuous?

I cannot be the only one that sees politicians promise things and then spectacularly not deliver when they get elected. If the folks you vote for don't do what you want and you cannot vote for someone that does, there is no way for you to influence policy with a "democratic" process. For most people "just get elected" is not an option, because for that to happen you need to be rich, well connected and relatively well spoken.

Oh dear, you really argue that every single parliamentary democracy in the world is not actually a democracy because, what, they are parliamentary? Something else?

No, in Iran the government has the same monopoly and uses it to pursue its own ends alright.

It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.

And how exactly is Iran a democratic society? I think I made a point about totalitarian regimes being different in the way the legitimize that monopoly and use it.

They didn't say it was? They were contradicting your claim that the state having a monopoly on violence is limited to democratic states.

A claim I never made, at least I hope I never did.

I misinterpreted your original comment. I suspect the other person may have misinterpreted it in the same way.

Iran gets trotted out as a strawman in these arguments, but its government is really quite democratic compared to many US allies which have the mere trappings of democracy painted on a dictatorship. Iran has an elected president, and a parliament and multiple parties. As I understand it, the biggest issue with the government as a functioning democracy is that the unelected supreme council can prevent candidates from running and and dissolve parties. I don't mean to defend its actions against protestors right now, which I believe are heinous, and the government is lacking in respect for many human rights, but as a strawman for absolute dictatorship it's a very poor choice. Democracy is a spectrum, Iran is definitely on the spectrum, and if we Americans look in the mirror and think deeply about the structure of our government, we might find out that we're a lot closer to Iran on that spectrum than we were taught in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Islamic_Repu...

It is not a spectrum. USA and eu might be. But if someone above you can prevent your from running or electing then it is NOT democracy.

Once you are free to do so then may I say no one promise heaven on earth. It is bad human and good in democracy. Sort it out. It is hard. But it is not the same as other sort it out for you.

By your own definition, pretty much no countries, including the US, are democracies, as almost everywhere has mechanisms through which the courts can prevent you from running.

Separation of power, judicative, legislative and executive, are the basic principal of democracies. The other being, fair, equal and secret elections.

Bingo! Well you can’t have a perfect “pure” democracy but you want to try to get as close as possible. The court isn’t just a king who decides to veto.

The thing that makes Iran not a democracy is that all those bodies (parliament, president, parties) answer to the supreme leader and religious authority.

It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones.

> It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones.

Like the supreme court?

The Supreme Court of which country?

The same way US is a democratic society?

If two party system with hard barriers for a new party to enter needing additional approval from board consisting of the existing parties is a democracy, then so is Iran with all their limitations. Maybe a lesser one than US, but not that different.

I don’t think your “democratic society” will remain that way for long, unless your Putin, in which case Ukraine is eager to join your country.

Why did they seize his coin? Did the person who seized it back actually break into something?

Principles are fine and dandy, but why are principals of innocent until proven guilty ok to be broken by “democratic societies”?

I mean it’s just an appeal to might makes right. My mob is bigger than your mob, so I take what k want.

It’s like we’ve lost the foundation to what the idea of a free country was.

Anyways Bitcoin is stupid still.

Any state, democratic or totalitarian, gives itself the monopoly on violence or there won't be a state, only factions vs factions, large and small ones down to single persons.

> The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws.

They can and they do

Feel free to explain to your lawyer how you're digging your own hole even further

Then we're supposed to hear sob stories about people who thought it was "just a prank" and got in serious trouble because they didn't know when to stop?

My passport has the wrong color. Banks often ask me for bullshit documents.

People are guilty by default on AML world and the burden of proof ALWAYS fall to the accused. This type of perversion of democratic values is loved and applauded by "well mannered and civilized" tech types whom are totes ok with de-risking strategies that are pretty much based on xenophobia. I'm yet to debate one of those oh-so-enlightened persons that didn't resorted to the "its your fault to have been born in the wrong place!" argument.

You know those people who love and pray to the altar of the almighty GDPR? They don't bat an eye to the fact that it doesn't apply to financial records.

It’s moral because he’s a scammer who stole money and violated the law. He shouldn’t keep ill-gotten gains because he’s good at using computers and his victims weren’t. If this were Edward Snowden (say what you want about his dealings with Russia in exile, what he did should not have been a crime) I’d have a very different opinion, but as it stands this guy is a scammer getting his just desserts

I'm unsure this is as reliable of an offensive strategy as it would seem.

For a lot of people, there is no amount of money they'd be willing to spend the rest of their life in captivity for - but for a great many with dependents I imagine there's probably a number at which you'd go "yeah, OK, I'll take that deal".

That being said, rotting in prison doesn't protect any of your stuff from seizure anyway so we're back to the parent's point again.

What happened to Kevin Mitnick is a cautionary tale that you can be held for at least five years without bail before you get the opportunity to plead your case.

Except he was in jail because he was fugitive from violating probation on a earlier fraud conviction

Imagine sending in a hard-core, 2009-era bitcoiner with a single address containing 10k bitcoin. The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). How does the US government own the coins by incarcerating the bitcoiner?

Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it.

If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power.

Think of it this way:

A state actor has identified funds on a offshore bank account that they do not have a controlling access to. They did seize a computer that has been used in the past to access that bank account.

The bank accounts owner (or an associate) removes funds from that bank account. The state actor acts as a petulant child and claims by seizing the computer, they also seized the bank account's content - and then proceeds to arrest the bank account owner (or their associate).

No judge in their right mind would let that fly.

In your example, no, the account owner wouldn't have a right to remove the money if the account and not the computer holding the password, was legally seized by the government. The government so cannot use those funds as they please neither until a legal decision allows them to do (RICO maybe, or anti-Mafia laws in Italy allow for that after court decisions). Also in your example, the bank in a different jurisdiction will get requests from the government in question to freeze the account, which might or might not be followed through depending on bi-lateral agreements and which country is asking on which basis for the account being freezed.

I have no idea why crypto would be treated any different.

There is no third party to have agreements with. There is only the government, the account holder, and the private key.

You forgot the courts. The government seizing stuff (which can be a problem in itself) doesn't mean the government can spend / use the stuff as they see fit. Courts have a say in that.

That's the point: In my example, an actual seizure of the account has not happened. Just because a state actor declares an item seized does not make it so - seizure implies having taken possession of the item at question (see, e.g. [1]). This clearly has not happened in the crypto case.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure

As another comment here notes: there is a different meaning behind the words 'seize' and 'control' when used by the government. Seizure doesn't equate control, and in the case of Bitcoin private keys, this difference is significant.

>The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc).

Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.

People have died for less. You are assuming everyone has the same kind of morals and ethics as yourself.

Hard to imagine dying for less than imaginary internet tokens.

I guess there are people who drive off cliffs and whatnot, but somehow that feels like an honest mistake and not as funny to me.

Morals and ethics somehow related to handing over your virtual money because someone is killing your family if you aren't?

Okay.

What's the point of 10k bitcoins if you can't buy you and your family a life free of the pain of being tortured by the government. Whose family is going to forgive them if they let their sons or daughters be mutilated and traumatised for the low, low price of 10k bitcoins?

Idk you're suggesting the existence of a human that, while not impossible, must be vanishingly rare. Perhaps you don't really understand what torture means?

There are people who have no one but themselves. It's much easier to imagine this when someone has no living relatives.

Some yes, but most people are happily giving up everything they own to avoid pain and suffering of themselves or their loved one.

This is nothing new and is proven throughout history.

It's also perfectly understandable that you'll choose the well being of your child or significant other over some money.

Isn't this just textbook rubber hose decryption? Nerds with families are easy to manipulate or intimidate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com